Ptolemaeus

VIEW:14 DATA:01-04-2020

Ptolemae'us. See Ptolemy.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863

Ptolemaeus
or PTOLEMY (Πτολεμαῖος, i.e. “the warlike,” from - πτόλεμος = πόλεμος), the dynastic name of the Greek kings of Egypt (A.V. “Ptol'emee” or “Ptoleme'us”), and hence employed also by many private persons. The name, which occurs in early legends (Il. 4:228; Pausan. 10:5), appears first in the historic period in the time of Alexander the Great, and became afterwards very frequent among the states which arose out of his conquests. For the following, which are the only persons of the name mentioned in the Scriptures (and these in the Apocrypha alone, although referred to in Daniel), we adopt the statements found in the standard authorities. For the civil history of the Ptolemies the student will find ample references to the original authorities in the articles in Smith's Dict. of Classical Biography, ii, 581, etc., and in Pauly's Real-Encyklopadie. The literature of the subject in its religious aspects has been noticed under ALEXANDRIA SEE ALEXANDRIA; SEE DISPERSION. A curious account of the literary activity of Ptolemy Philadelphus is given (by Simon de Magistris) in the Apologia sent. Pat. de LXX Vers., appended to Daniel sec. LXX (Romae, 1772); but this is not always trustworthy. More complete details of the history of the Alexandrine libraries are given by Ritschl, Die Alexandrinischen Bibliotheken (Breslau, 1838); and Parthey, Das Alexandr. Museum (Berlin, 1838). The foregoing table gives the descent of the royal line as far as it is connected with Biblical history. SEE EGYPT.
1. PTOLEMY I, Soter (Σωτήρ, savior), known as the son of Lagus, a Macedonian of low rank, was generally supposed to be an illegitimate son of Philip. He distinguished himself greatly during the campaigns of Alexander; at whose death, foreseeing the necessary subdivision of the empire, he secured for himself the government of Egypt, where he proceeded at once to lay the foundations of a kingdom (B.C. 323). His policy during the wars of the succession was mainly directed towards the consolidation of his power. and not to wide conquests. He maintained himself against the attacks of Perdiccas (B.C. 321) and Demetrius (B.C. 312), and gained a precarious footing in Syria and Phoenicia. In B.C. 307 he suffered a very severe defeat at sea off Cyyprus from Antigonus, but successfully defended Egypt against invasion. After the final defeat of Antigonus, B.C. 301, he was obliged to concede the debatable provinces of Phoenicia and Coele-Syria to Seleucus; and during the remainder of his reign his only important achievement abroad was the recovery of Cyprus, which he permanently attached to the Egyptian monarchy (B.C. 295). He abdicated in favor of his youngest son, Ptolemy II Philadelphus, two years before his death, which took place in B.C. 283.
Ptolemy Soter is described very briefly in Dan_11:5 as one of those who should receive part of the empire of Alexander when it was 4 divided towards the four winds of heaven.” “The king of the south [Egypt in respect of Judoea] shall be strong; and one of his princes [Seleucus Nicator, shall be strong]; and he [Seleucus] shall be strong above him [Ptolemy], and have dominion.” Seleucus, who is here mentioned, fled from Babylon, where Antigonus sought his life, to Egypt in B.C. 316, and attached himself to Ptolemy. At last the decisive victory of Ipsus (B.C. 301), which was mainly gained by his services, gave him the command of an empire which was greater than any other held by Alexander's successors; and “his dominion was a great dominion” (Dan. l.c.). Jerome (ad Dan. l.c.) very strangely refers the latter clauses of the verse to Ptolemy Philadelphus, “whose empire surpassed that of his father.” The whole tenor of the passage requires the contrast of the two kingdoms on which the fortunes of Judaea hung.
In one of his expeditions into Syria, probably B.C. 320, Ptolemy treacherously occupied Jerusalem on the Sabbath, a fact which arrested the attention of the heathen historian Agatharcides (ap. Joseph. C. Ap. i, 22; Ant. 12:1). He carried away many Jews and Samaritans captive to Alexandria; but, aware probably of the great importance of the good-will of the inhabitants of Palestine in the event of a Syrian war, he gave them the full privileges of citizenship in the new city. In the campaign of Gaza (B.C. 312) he reaped the fruits of his liberal policy; and many Jews voluntarily emigrated to Egypt, though the colonyv was from the first disturbed by internal dissensions (Josephus, as above; Hecat. ap. Joseph. C. Ap. l.c.).
2. PTOLEMY II, Philadelphus (Φιλάδελφος, i.e. brother-loving), the youngest son of Ptolemy I, was made king two years before his death, to confirm the irregular succession. The conflict between Egypt and Syria was renewed during his reign in consequence of the intrigue of his half-brother Magas. “But in the end of years they [the kings of Syria and Egypt] joined themselves together [in friendship]. For the king's daughter of the south [Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus] came [as bride] to the king of the north [Antiochus II], to make an agreement” (Dan_11:6). The unhappy issue of this marriage has been noticed already, SEE ANTIOCHUS II; and the political events of the reign of Ptolemy, who, however, retained possession of the disputed provinces of Phoenicia and Coele-Syria, offer no further points of interest in connection with Jewish history.
In other respects, however, this reign was a critical epoch for the development of Judaism, as it was for the intellectual history of the ancient world. The liberal encouragement which Ptolemy bestowed on literature and science (following out in this the designs of his Iather) gave birth to a new school of writers and thinkers. The critical faculty was called forth in place of the creative, and learning, in some sense, supplied the place of original speculation. Eclecticism was the necessary result of the concurrence and comparison of dogmas; and it was impossible that the Jew, who was now become as true a citizen of the world as the Greek, should remain passive in the conflict of opinions. The origin and influence of the translation of the Sept. will be considered in another place. SEE SEPTUAGINT.
It is enough now to observe the greatness of the consequences involved in the union of Greek language with Jewish thought. From this time the Jew was familiarized with the great types of Western literature, and in some degree aimed at imitating them. Ezechiel (ὁ τῶν Ι᾿ουδαϊκῶν τραγῳδιῶν ποιητής, Clem. Alex. Strom. i, 23, § 155) wrote a drama on the subject of the Exodus, of which considerable fragments, in fair iambic verse, remain (Euseb. Proep. Ev. 9:28, 29; Clem. Alex. l.c.), though he does not appear to have adhered strictly to the laws of classical composition. An elder Philo celebrated Jerusalem in a long hexameter poem — Eusebius quotes the 14th book — of which the few corrupt lines still preserved (Euseb. Proep. Er. 9:20, 24, 28) convey no satisfactory notion. Another epic poem, On the Jews, was written by Theodotus, and as the extant passages (ibid. 9:22) treat of the history of Sichem, it has been conjectured that he was a Samaritan. The work of Aristobulus on the interpretation of the law was a still more important result of the combination of the old faith with Greek culture, as forming the groundwork of later allegories. While the Jews appropriated the fruits of Western science, the Greeks looked towards the East with a new curiosity. The histories of Berosus and Manetho and Hecataeus opened a world as wide and as novel as the conquests of Alexander. The legendary sibyls were taught to speak in the language of the prophets. The name of Orpheus, which was connected with the first rise of Greek polytheism, gave sanction to verses which set forth nobler views of the Godhead (ibid. 13:12, etc.). Even the most famous poets were not free from interpolation (Ewall, Gesch. 4:297, note). Everywhere the intellectual approximation of Jew and Gentile was growing closer, or at least more possible. The later specific forms of teaching to which this syncretism of East and West gave rise have already been noticed. SEE ALEXANDRIA. A second time, and in a new fashion, Egypt disciplined a people of God. It first impressed upon a nation the firm unity of a family, and then in due time reconnected a matured people with the world from which it had been called out.
3. PTOLEMY III, Euergetes (Εὐεργέτης, i.e. well-doer), was the eldest son of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and brother of Berenice, the wife of Antiochus II. The repudiation and murder of his sister furnished him with an occasion for invading Syria (B.C. cir. 246). He “stood up, a branch out o' her stock [sprung from the same parents] in his [father's] estate; and set himself at [the head of] his army, and came against the fortresses of the king of the north [Antiochus], and dealt against them and prevailed” (Dan_11:7). He extended his conquests as far as Antioch, and then eastward to Babylon, but was recalled to Egypt by tidings of seditions which had broken out there. His success was brilliant and complete. “he carried captive into Egypt the gods [of the conquered nations] with their molten images, and with their precious vessels of silver and gold” (Dan_11:8). This capture of sacred trophies, which included the recovery of images taken from Egypt by Cambyses (Jerome, ad loc.), earned for the king the name Euergetes “Benefactor” — from the superstitious Egyptians, and was specially recorded in the inscriptions which he set up at Adule in memory of his achievements (Cosmas Ind. ap. Clinton, F.H. p. 382, n.). After his return to Egypt (B.C. cir. 243) he suffered a great part of the conquered provinces to fall again under the power of Seleucus. But the attempts which Seleucus made to attack Egypt terminated disastrously to himself. He first collected a fleet, which was almost totally destroyed by a storm; and then, “as if by some judicial infatuation,” “he came against the realm of the king o' the south and [being defeated] returned to his own land [to Antioch]” (Dan_11:9; Justin. 27:2). After this Ptolemy “desisted some years from [attacking] the king of the north” (Dan_11:8), since the civil war between Seleucus and Antiochus Hierax, which he fomented, secured him from any further Syrian invasion. The remainder of the reign of Ptolemy seems to have been spent chiefly in developing the resources of the empire, which he raised to the highest pitch of its prosperity. His policy towards the Jews was similar to that of his predecessors, and on his occupation of Syria he “offered sacrifices, after the custom of the law, in acknowledgment of his success, in the Temple at Jerusalem, and added gifts worthy of his victory” (Joseph. C. Ap. ii, 5). The famous story of the manner in which Joseph, the son of Tobias, obtained from him the lease of the revenues of Judaea is a striking illustration both of the condition of the country and of the influence of individual Jews (id. Ant. 12:4). SEE ONIAS.
4. PTOLEMY IV. Philopator (Φιλοπάτωρ, i.e. father-loving). After the death of Ptolemy Euergetes, the line of the Ptolemies rapidly degenerated (Strabo, 16:12,13, p. 798). Ptolemy Philopator, his eldest son, who succeeded him, was, to the last degree, sensual, effeminate, and debased. But, externally, his kingdom retained its power and splendor; and when circumstances forced him to action, Ptolemy himself showed ability not unworthy of his race. The description of the campaign of Raphia (B.C. 217) in the book of Daniel gives a vivid description of his character. “The sons of Seleucus [Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus the Great] were stirred up, and assembled a multitude of great forces; and one of them [Antiochus] came, and overflowed, and passed through [even to Pelusium: Polyb. v, 62]; and he returned [from Seleucia, to which he had retired during a faithless truce: Polyb. v, 66]; and they [Antiochus and Ptolemy] were stirred up [in war] even to his [Antiochus's] fortress. And the king of the south [Ptolemy Philopator] was moved with choler, and came forth and fought with him [at Raphia]; and he set forth a great multitude; and the multitude was given into his hand [to lead to battle]. And the multitude raised itself [proudly for the conflict], and his heart was lifted up, and he cast down ten thousanzds (comp. Polyb. v, 86); but he was not vigorous” [to reap the fruits of his victory] (Dan_11:10-12; comp. 3Ma_1:1-5). After this decisive success, Ptolemy Philopator visited the neighboring cities of Syria, and, among others, Jerusalem. After offering sacrifices of thanksgiving in the Temple, he attempted to enter the sanctuary. A sudden paralysis hindered his design; but when he returned to Alexandria, he determined to inflict on the Alexandrian Jews the vengeance for his disappointment. In this, however, he was again hindered: and eventually he confirmed to them the full privileges which they had enjoyed before. SEE MACCABEES, THE THIRD BOOK OF.
The recklessness of his reign was further marked by the first insurrection of the native Egyptians against their Greek rulers (Polyb. v, 107). This was put down, and Ptolemy, during the remainder of his life, gave himself up to unbridled excesses. He died B.C. 205, and was succeeded by his only child, Ptolemy V, Epiphanes, who was at the time only four or five years old (Jerome, ad Dan.l 11:10-12).
5. PTOLEMY V, Epiphanes (Ε᾿πιφάνες, i.e. illustrious). The reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes was a critical epoch in the history of the Jews. The rivalry between the Syrian and Egyptian parties, which had for some time divided the people, came to an open rupture in the struggles which marked his minority. The Syrian faction openly declared for Antiochus the Great when he advanced on his second expedition against Egypt; and the Jews, who remained faithful to the old alliance, fled to Egypt in great numbers, where Onias. the rightful successor to the high-priesthood, not long afterwards established the temple at Leontopolis. (Jerome [ad Dan, 11:14] places the flight of Onias to Egypt and the foundation of the temple of Leontopolis in the reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes; but Onias was still a youth at the time of' his father's death, B.C. cir. 171.) SEE ONIAS.
In the strong language of Daniel, “The robbers of the people exalted themselves to establish the vision'” (Dan_11:14) — to confirm by the issue of their attempt the truth of the prophetic word, and at the same time to forward unconsciously the establishment of the heavenly kingdom which they sought to anticipate. The accession of Ptolemy, and the confusion of a disputed regency furnished a favorable opportunity for foreign invasion. “Many stood up against the king of the south,” under Antiochus the Great and Philip III of Macedonia, who formed a league for the dismemberment of his kingdom. “So the king of the north [Antiochus] came, and cast up a mount, and took the most fenced city [Sidon, to which Scopas, the general of Ptolemy, had fled: Jerome, ad loc.], and the arms of the south did not withstand” [at Paneas, B.C. 198, where Antiochus gained a decisive victory] (Dan_11:14-15). The interference of the Romans, to whom the regents had turned for help, checked Antiochus in his career; but in order to retain the provinces of Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Judaea, which he had reconquered, really under his power, while he seemed to comply with the demands of the Romans, who required them to be surrendered to Ptolemy, “he gave him [Ptolemy, his daughter Cleopatra] a young maiden” [as his betrothed wife] (Dan_11:17). But in the end his policy only partially succeeded. After the marriage of Ptolemy and Cleopatra was consummated (B.C. 193), Cleopatra did “not stand on his side,” but supported her husband in maintaining the alliance with Rome. The disputed provinces, however, remained in the possession of Antiochus; and Ptolemy was poisoned at the time when he was preparing an expedition to recover them from Seleucus, the unworthy successor of Antiochus, B.C. 181.
6. PTOLEMY VI, Philometor (Φιλομήτωρ, i.e. mother-loving). On the death of Ptolemy Epiphanes, his wife, Cleopatra, held the regency for her young son, Ptolemy Philometor, and preserved peace with Syria till she died, B.C. 173. The government then fell into unworthy hands, and an attempt was made to recover Syria (comp. 2Ma_4:21). Antiochus Epiphanes seems to have made the claim a pretext for invading Egypt. The generals of Ptolemy were defeated near Pelusium, probably at the close of B.C. 171 (Clinton, F. f. iii, 319; 1Ma_1:16 sq.); and in the next year Antiochus, having secured the person of the young king, reduced almost the whole of Egypt (comp. 2Ma_5:1). Meanwhile Ptolemy Euergetes II, the younger brother of Ptolemy Philometor, assumed the supreme power at Alexandria; and Antiochus, under the pretext of recovering the crown for Philometor, besieged Alexandria in B.C. 169. By this time, however, his selfish designs were apparent: the brothers were reconciled, and Antiochus was obliged to acquiesce for the time in the arrangement which they made. But while doing so, he prepared for another invasion of Egypt, and was already approaching Alexandria, when he was met by the Roman embassy, led by C. Popillius Luenas, who, in the name of the Roman senate, insisted on his immediate retreat (B.C. 168), a command which the late victory at Pydna made it impossible to disobey. (Others reckon only three campaigns of Antiochus against Egypt in 171, 170, 168 [Grimm on 1Ma_1:18]. Yet the campaign of 169 seems clearly distinguished from those in the years before and after, though in the description of Daniel the campaigns of 170 and 169 are not noticed separately.)
These campaigns, which are intimately connected with the visits of Antiochus to Jerusalem in B.C. 170, 168, are briefly described in Dan_11:25-30 : “he [Antiochus] shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south [Ptolemy Philometor] shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they [the ministers, as it appears, in whom he trusted] shall forecast devices against him. Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall melt away, and many shall fall down slain. And both these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table [Antiochus shall profess falsely to maintain the cause of Philometor against his brother, and Philometor to trust in his good faith]; but it shall not prosper [the resistance of Alexandria shall preserve the independence of Egypt]; for the end shall be at the time appointed. Then shall he [Antiochus] return into his land, and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits, and return to his own land. At the time oppointed he shall return and come towards the south; but it shall not be as the former, so also the latter time. [His career shall be checked at once.] For the ships of Chittim [comp. Num_24:24 : the Roman fleet] shall come against him: therefore he shall be dismayed and return and have indignation against the holy covenant.”
After the discomfiture of Antiochus, Philometor was for some time occupied in resisting the ambitious designs of his brother, who made two attempts to add Cyprus to the kingdom of Cyrene, which was allotted to him. Having effectually put down these attempts, he turned his attention again to Syria. During the brief reign of Antiochus Eupator he seems to have supported Philip against the regent Lysias (comp. 2Ma_9:29). After the murder of Eupator by Demetrius I, Philometor espoused the cause of Alexander Balas, the rival claimant to the throne, because Demetrius had made an attempt on Cyprus; and when Alexander had defeated and slain his rival. he accepted the overtures which he made, and gave him his daughter Cleopatra in marriage (B.C. 150: 1Ma_10:51-58). Yet, according to 1Ma_11:1; 1Ma_11:10, etc., the alliance was not made in good faith, but only as a means towards securing possession of Syria. According to others, Alexander himself made a treacherous attempt on the life of Ptolemy (comp. 1Ma_11:10), which caused him to transfer his support to Demetrius II, to whom also he gave his daughter, whom he had taken from Alexander. The whole of Syria was quickly subdued, and he was crowned at Antioch king of Egypt and Asia (1Ma_11:13). Alexander made an effort to recover his crown, but was defeated by the forces of Ptolemy and Demetrius, and shortly afterwards put to death in Arabia. But Ptolemy did not long enjoy his success. He fell from his horse in the battle, and died within a few days (1Ma_11:18), B.C. 145.
Ptolemy Philometor is the last king of Egypt who is noticed in sacred history, and his reign was marked also by the erection of the temple at Leontopolis. The coincidence is worthy of notice, for the consecration of a new centre of worship placed a religious as well as a political barrier between the Alexandrian and Palestinian Jews. Henceforth the nation was again divided. The history of the temple itself is extremely obscure, but even in its origin it was a monument of civil strife. Onias, the son of Onias III (Josephus, in one place [War, 7:10, 2], calls him “the son of Simon,” and he appears under the same name in Jewish legends; but it seems certain that this was a mere error, occasioned by the patronymic of the most famous Onias [comp. Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Judenth. ii, 557]), who was murdered at Antioch B.C. 171, when he saw that he was excluded from the succession to the high-priesthood by mercenary intrigues, fled to Egypt, either shortly after his father's death or upon the transfer of the office to Alcimus, B.C. 162 (Josephus, Ant. 12:9, 7). It is probable that his retirement must be placed at the later date, for he was a child, παῖς (Josephus, Ant. 12:5), at the time of his father's death, and he is elsewhere mentioned as one of those who actively opposed the Syrian party in Jerusalem (Josephus, War, i, 1). In Egypt, he entered the service of the king, and rose, with another Jew, Dositheus, to the supreme command. In this office he rendered important services during the war which Ptolemy Phvscon waged against his brother; and he pleaded these to induce the king to grant him a ruined temple of Diana (τῆς ἀγρίας Βουβάστεως) at Leontopolis as the site of a temple which he proposed to build “after the pattern of that at Jerusalem, and of the same dimensions.” His alleged object was to unite the Jews in one body who were at the time “divided into hostile factions, even as the Egyptians were, from their differences in religious services” (Josephus, Ant. 13:3,1). In defence of the locality which he chose, he quoted the words of Isaiah (Isa_19:18-19), who spoke of “an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt,” and, according to one interpretation, mentioned “the city of the Sun” (עַיר הִחֶרֶס) by name. The site was granted and the temple built, but the original plan was not exactly carried out. The Naos rose “like a tower to the height of sixty cubits” (Josephus, War, 7:10, 3, πύργῳ παραπλήσιον...εἰς ἑξήκοντα πήχεις ἀνεστηκότα).
The altar and the offerings were similar to those at Jerusalem, but in place of the seven-branched candlestick was “a single lamp of gold suspended by a golden chain.” The service was performed by priests and Levites of pure descent; and the temple possessed considerable revenues, which were devoted to their support and to the adequate celebration of the divine ritual (Josephus, War, vii. 10, 3; Ant. 13:3, 3). The object of Ptolemy Philometor in flurthering the design of Onias was doubtless the same as that which led to the erection of the “golden calves” in Israel. The Jewish residents in Egypt were numerous and powerful; and when Jerusalem was in the hands of the Syrians, it became of the utmost importance to weaken their connection with their mother city. In this respect the position of the temple on the eastern border of the kingdom was peculiarly important (Jost, Gesch. des Judenthums, i, 117). On the other hand, it is probable that Onias saw no hope in the hellenized Judaism of a Syrian province; and the triumph of the Maccabees was still unachieved when the temple at Leontopolis was founded. The date of this event cannot, indeed, be exactly determined. Josephus says (War, 7:10, 4) that the temple had existed “343 years” at the time of its destruction, A.D. cir. 71; but the text is manifestly corrupt. Eusebius (ap. Hieron. 8 p. 507, ed. Migne) notices the flight of Onias and the building of the temple under the same year (B.C. 162), possibly from the natural connection of the events without regard to the exact date of the latter. Some time at least must be allowed for the military service of Onias, and the building of the temple may, perhaps, be placed after the conclusion of the last war with Ptolemy Physcon (B.C. cir. 154), when Jonathan “began to judge the people at Machmas” (1Ma_9:73). In Palestine the erection of this second temple was not condemned so strongly as might have been expected. A question, indeed, was raised in later times whether the service were not idolatrous (Jerus. Joma, 43 d, ap. Jost, Gesch. des Judenthums, i, 119); but the Mishna, embodying, without doubt, the old decisions, determines the point more favorably. “Priests who had served at Leontopolis were forbidden to serve at Jerusalem, but were not excluded from attending the public services.” “A vow might be discharged rightly at Leontopolis as well as at Jerusalem, but it was not enough to discharge it at the former place only” (Menach. 109 a, ap. Jost, as above). The circumstances under which the new temple was erected were evidently accepted as in some degree an excuse for the irregular worship. The connection with Jerusalem, though weakened in popular estimation, was not broken; and the spiritual significance of the one Temple remained ulnchanged for the devout believer (Philo, De Monarch. ii, § 1, etc.). SEE ALEXANDRIA.
The Jewish colony in Egypt, of which Leontopolis was the immediate religious centre, was formed of various elements and at different times. The settlements which were made under the Greek sovereigns, though the most important, were by no means the first. In the later times of the kingdom of Judah many “trusted in Egypt,” and took refuge there (Jer_43:6-7); and when Jeremiah was taken to Tahapanes. he spoke to “all the Jews which dwell in the land of Egypt, which dwell at Migdol and Tahapanes, and at Noph, and in the country of Pathros” (Jer_44:1). This colony, formed against the command of God, was devoted to complete destruction (Jer_44:27); but when the connection was once formed, it is probable that the Persians, acting on the same policy as the Ptolemies, encouraged the settlement of Jews in Egypt to keep in check the native population. After the Return, the spirit of commerce must have contributed to increase the number of emigrants; but the history of the Egyptian Jews is involved in the same deep obscurity as that of the Jews of Palestine till the invasion of Alexander. There cannot, however, be any reasonable doubt as to the power and influence of the colony; and the mere fact of its existence is an important consideration in estimating the possibility of Jewish ideas finding their way to the West. Judaism had secured, in old times, all the treasures of Egypt, and thus the first instalment of the debt was repaid. A preparation was already made for a great work when the founding of Alexandria opened a new era in the history of the Jews. Alexander, according to the policy of all great conquerors, incorporated the conquered in his armies. Samaritans (Josephus, Ant. 11:8, 6) and Jews (Josephus, Ant. 11:8, 5; Hecat. ap. Joseph. C. Ap. i, 22) are mentioned among his troops; and the tradition is probably true which reckons them among the first settlers at Alexandria (Josephus, War, ii, 18, 7; C. Ap. ii, 4). Ptolemy Soter increased the colony of the Jews in Egypt both by force and by policy; and their numbers in the next reign may be estimated by the statement (Josephus, Ant. 12:2, 1) that Ptolemy Philadelphus gave freedom to one hundred and twenty thousand. The position occupied by Joseph (Josephus, Ant. 12:4) at the court of Ptolemy Euergetes I implies that the Jews were not only numerous, but influential. As we go onward, the legendary accounts of the persecution of Ptolemy Philopator bear witness at least to the great number of Jewish residents in Egypt (3Ma_4:15; 3Ma_4:17), and to their dispersion throughout the Delta. In the next reign many of the inhabitants of Palestine who remained faithful to the Egyptian alliance fled to Egypt to escape from the Syrian rule (comp. Jerome, ad Dan.l 11:14, who is, however, confused in his account). The consideration which their leaders must have thus gained accounts for the rank which a Jew, Aristobulus, is said to have held under Ptolemy Philometor as “tutor of the king” (διδάσκαλος, 2Ma_1:10). The later history of the Alexandrian Jews has already been noticed. SEE ALEXANDRIA.
They retained their privileges under the Romans, though they were exposed to the illegal oppression of individual governors, and quietly acquiesced in the foreign dominion (Josephus, War, 7:10, 1). An attempt which was made by some of the fugitives from Palestine to create a rising in Alexandria after the destruction of Jerusalem entirely failed; but the attempt gave the Romans an excuse for. plundering, and afterwards (B.C. 71) for closing entirely, the temple at Leontopolis (Josephus, War, 7:10).
7. “The son of Dorymenes” (1Ma_3:38; 2Ma_4:45; comp. Polyb. v, 61), a courtier who possessed great influence with Antiochus Epiphanes. He was induced by a bribe to support the cause of Menelaus (2Ma_4:45-50), and afterwards took an active part in forcing the Jews to apostatize (2Ma_6:8, according to the true reading). When Judas had successfully resisted the first assaults of the Syrians, Ptolemy took part in the great expedition which Lysias organized against him, which ended in the defeat at Emmaus (B.C. 166); but nothing is said of his personal fortunes in the campaign (1Ma_3:38).
8. The son of Agesarchus (Ath. 6 p. 246 C), a Megalopolitan, surnamed Macron (2Ma_10:12), who was governor of Cyprus during the minority of Ptolemy Philometor. This office he discharged with singular fidelity (Polyb. 27:12); but afterwards he deserted the Egyptian service to join Antiochus Epiphanes. He stood high in the favor of Antiochus, and received from him the government of Phoenicia and Coele-Syria (2Ma_8:8; 2Ma_10:11-12). On the accession of Antiochus Eupator, his conciliatory policy towards the Jews brought him into suspicion at court. He was deprived of his government, and in consequence of this disgrace he poisoned himself, B.C. cir. 164 (2Ma_10:13).
Ptolemy Macron is commonly identified with Ptolemy “the son of Dorymenes;” and it seems likely, from a comparison of 1Ma_3:38 with 2Ma_8:8-9, that they were confused in the popular account of the war. But the testimony of Athenaeus distinctly separates the governor of Cyprus from “the son of Dorymenes” by his parentage. It is also doubtful whether Ptolemy Macron had left Cyprus as early as B.C. 170, when “the son of Dorymenes” was at Tyre (2Ma_4:45); though there is no authority for the common statement that he gave up the island into the hands of Antiochus, who did not gain it till B.C. 168.
9. The son of Abubus, who married the daughter of Simon the Maccabee. He was a man of great wealth, and, being invested with the government of the district of Jericho, formed the design of usurping the sovereignty of Judaea. With this view he treacherously murdered Simon and two of his sons (1Ma_16:11-16; Josephus, Ant. 13:7, 4; 8, 1, with some variations); but John Hyrcanus received timely intimation of his design, and escaped. Hyrcanus afterwards besieged him in his stronghold of Dok; but in consequence of the occurrence of the Sabbatical year, Ptolemy was enabled to make his escape to Zeno Cotylas, prince of Philadelphia (Josephus, Ant. 13:8, 1).
10. A citizen of Jerusalem, father of Lysimachus, the Greek translator of Esther (Esther 13). Whether this is the same Ptolemy who is mentioned in the same verse as the carrier of the book to Egypt remains uncertain. SEE LYSIMACHUS, 1.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores